Editorial - Introduction to the special issue on deliberation with computers: exploring the distinctive contribution of new technologies to collaborative thinking and learning

Abstract not available

Computers, talk and learning : using computers to help coach reasoning through talk across the curriculum

The main theme of this thesis is the role of computers as a support for reasoning through talk in the classroom. A second, closely linked, theme is the role of reasoning through talk in general intellectual development.In the first part of the thesis the two areas of the teaching of thinking skills and the use of computers as a support for cooperative work in classrooms are explored through critical reviews of the literature and through two empirical studies. The findings of this exploratory research lead to the development of a theoretical framework for the use of computers in classrooms. This theoretical framework consists of the characterisation of a type of talk that is effective in promoting general intellectual development, a model of the structure of educational activities in which groups of children work with computers and a set of principles for the design of software to support reasoned discussion.In the second part of the thesis the theoretical framework is explored and tested through the development and implementation of an intervention programme. A new methodology is developed to evaluate this intervention programme integrating a quasi-experimental method with both qualitative discourse analysis and computer-based discourse analysis. The findings of the evaluation support four key hypotheses which emerge from the theoretical framework. First, that there is a link between the coaching of reasoning through talk and performance on tests of general reasoning ability. Second, that the quality of computer-supported collaborative learning can be enhanced through the off-computer coaching of exploratory talk. Third, that group work at computers can in turn be used effectively to extend an educational programme designed to coach exploratory talk across the curriculum. Fourth, that computer-based collaborative learning can - be used to integrate active peer-learning with directed teaching. These findings have significant implications for educational theory and practice

Dialogue on ‘dialogic education’: has Rupert gone over to ‘the Dark Side’?

ArticleThis is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.This email dialogue that we record and report here between Eugene Matusov and Rupert Wegerif, exemplifies Internet mediated dialogic education. When Eugene emailed Rupert with his initial (mis)understanding of Rupert's position about dialogic pedagogy Rupert felt really motivated to reply. Rupert was not simply motivated to refute Eugene and assert his correctness, although Rupert is sure such elements enter into every dialogue, but also to explore and to try to resolve the issues ignited by the talk in New Zealand. Through this extended dialogue Rupert's and Eugene's positions become more nuanced and focussed. Rupert brings out his concern with the long-term and collective nature of some dialogues claiming that the – "dialogue of humanity that education serves is bigger than the interests of particular students and particular teachers.…" – and so he argues that it is often reasonable to induct students into the dialogue so far so that they can participate fully. On the other hand, Eugene's view of dialogue seems more focussed on personal responsibility, particular individual desires, interests and positions, individual agency and answering the final ethical "damned questions" without an alibi-in-being. Rupert claims that dialogic education is education FOR dialogue and Eugene claims that dialogic education is education AS dialogue. Both believe in education THROUGH dialogue but education through dialogue is not in itself dialogic education. For Rupert dialogic education can include ‘scaffolding’ for full participation in dialogue as long as dialogue is the aim. For Eugene dialogic education has to be a genuine dialogue and this means that a curriculum goal cannot be specified in advance because learning in a dialogue is always emergent and unpredictable. Our dialogue-disagreement is a relational and discursive experiment to develop a new genre of academic critical dialogue. The dialogue itself called to us and motivated us and flowed through us. This dialogue is much bigger than us. It participates in a dialogue that humanity has been having about education for thousands of years. We hope that it also engages you and calls you to respond

Dialogue on ‘Dialogic Education’: Has Rupert gone over to ‘the Dark Side’?

This email dialogue that we record and report here between Eugene Matusov and Rupert Wegerif, exemplifies Internet mediated dialogic education. When Eugene emailed Rupert with his initial (mis)understanding of Rupert's position about dialogic pedagogy Rupert felt really motivated to reply. Rupert was not simply motivated to refute Eugene and assert his correctness, although Rupert is sure such elements enter into every dialogue, but also to explore and to try to resolve the issues ignited by the talk in New Zealand. Through this extended dialogue Rupert's and Eugene's positions become more nuanced and focussed. Rupert brings out his concern with the long-term and collective nature of some dialogues claiming that the – "dialogue of humanity that education serves is bigger than the interests of particular students and particular teachers.…" – and so he argues that it is often reasonable to induct students into the dialogue so far so that they can participate fully. On the other hand, Eugene's view of dialogue seems more focussed on personal responsibility, particular individual desires, interests and positions, individual agency and answering the final ethical "damned questions" without an alibi-in-being.  Rupert claims that dialogic education is education FOR dialogue and Eugene claims that dialogic education is education AS dialogue. Both believe in education THROUGH dialogue but education through dialogue is not in itself dialogic education. For Rupert dialogic education can include ‘scaffolding’ for full participation in dialogue as long as dialogue is the aim. For Eugene dialogic education has to be a genuine dialogue and this means that a curriculum goal cannot be specified in advance because learning in a dialogue is always emergent and unpredictable. Our dialogue-disagreement is a relational and discursive experiment to develop a new genre of academic critical dialogue. The dialogue itself called to us and motivated us and flowed through us. This dialogue is much bigger than us. It participates in a dialogue that humanity has been having about education for thousands of years. We hope that it also engages you and calls you to respond

New Technology and the Apparent Failure of Democracy: An Educational Response

It argues that the advent of new media requires an educational response to teach all children and students how to engage effectively in democratic dialogue.n/

Oracy and the Educational Achievement of Pupils with English as an Additional Language: The Impact of Bringing 'Talking Partners' into Bradford Schools

The relatively poor educational performance of some ethnically defined groups of children with English as an additional language (EAL) is a serious challenge for educators in the UK. In this paper we describe a research project designed to explore the hypothesis that this case of underperformance, like others, results from a mismatch between the registers learnt at home and those assumed in education. The method used was to offer extra support for those oral registers required for understanding in the classroom by providing trained adult 'talking partners' for young bilingual pupils. Sixty four pupils, aged between five and eight years, were given this additional oral language support and their progress in language and learning was then compared to that of similar pupils in the same schools. The findings show that extra sessions with adult talking partners made a real difference to their spoken English in an educational context and so to their engagement in education

Simulated internships in schools::Engaging learners with the world of work to promote collaborative creativity

School curricula have often struggled to authentically engage young people with the world of work. This chapter examines the potential of ‘simulated’ school classroom-based internships to support collaborative and creative learning and links to the workplace. It reports on design-based research in areas of low social mobility in England. This investigates how simulated internships give students access to authentic experiences of workplace practices in addition to enhancing skills associated with collaborative creativity. Through a challenge-based learning pedagogy implemented as part of regular classroom instruction, simulated internships involve small groups of students aged 11-13 studying Computing or Design and Technology. Over six-to-seven-weeks, together they design, model, or build a local solution to a global challenge presented virtually by engineers in two leading international telecommunications companies. An empirical ‘case study’, based on discourse and thematic analysis, is provided to evidence the scope and challenges of embedding a mutual focus on creative collaboration and supporting authentic insights into the world of work. Reported research is significant as it offers a proof of concept that identifies the potential of simulated internships in generating meaningful insights into the world of work. Focused on the development of collaborative creativity, this conceptualisation of simulated internships can inform and guide future pedagogical and research initiatives. Potentially this could expand to cover other curricular areas and, indeed, other educational settings

Combining scaffolding for content and scaffolding for dialogue to support conceptual break throughs in understanding probability

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0720-5In this paper, we explore the relationship between scaffolding, dialogue and conceptual breakthroughs, using data from a design-based research study into the development of understanding of probability in 10-12 year old students. Our aim in the study was to gain insight into how the combination of the scaffolding of content using technology and scaffolding for dialogue in the expectation that this would facilitate conceptual breakthroughs. We analyse video-recordings and transcripts of pairs and triads talking together around TinkerPlots software with worksheets and teacher interventions, focusing on moments of conceptual breakthrough. The dialogue scaffolding promoted both dialogue moves specific to the context of probability and dialogue in itself. This paper focuses on an episode of learning that occurred within dialogues (framed and supported by the scaffolding. We present this as support for our claim that combining scaffolding for content with scaffolding for dialogue can be effective. This finding contributes to our understanding of both scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education by suggesting that scaffolding can be used effectively to prepare for conceptual development through dialogue.7th European Community Framework Programme - Marie Curie Intra European Fellowshi